I am discussing the concept of Anarcho-Capitalism with others off Mises.org, I was wondering if anyone has a clear concise definition of An-Cap…
Preferably with a link if it is a referenced source…
Thanks guys…
Anarcho-Capitalism: Free trade, free buying, and free selling in the absence of the state and for the purpose of profit.
I was hoping a little deeper Daniel, but thank you for the brief and speedy reply [Y]
You said you wanted a consice version. Concise? Deep? Concise? Deep? I suppose I could have added “private property” to it as a requirement.
The non aggression axiom (principle) plus Lockean / Rothbardian Homesteading private property principles applied to everything.
Eh?
Anarcho-capitalism is a system in which no particular person or group has a monopoly on force. There are a lot of nuances around that but it’s the basic idea.
The NAP has nothing to do with an-cap, as there are antithetical views on what does and does not constitute aggression: abortion, public indecency, under-age sex, etc.
You are right I apologize
Very Good Point!
Well… Austro-Libertarianism then? lol. Anti-monopoly definition was good btw.
Evictionism.
Who owns the property sets the rules.
Consent? On whose property?
Nobody cares what you think about abortion, public indecency or under-age sex. The fact that people hold irreconcilable views on the topics effectively means the NAP is irrelevant to anarcho-capitalism.
If anybody wants to have some healthy debate (and I am open to debate; this post was largely set up as bait), I wrote a short post on why I believe government is inevitable (or why I think any kind of anarchism would eventually fail).
Yeah, but that’s like saying that we shouldn’t have private property because someone will eventually steal from someone else.
What about ‘a system where no particular person is forced to play Monopoly (which will not even be TM’d, btw)’?
No need for apologies. I forgot to insert a sarcasm.
More like saying that we shouldn’t try to prevent tumor growth because cancer is inevitable if you live long enough.
As to an “anarcho-capitalism” definition, first I wouldn’t ever use that word outside these circles, because it’s awful in several ways:
- The “-ism” makes it sound like a political position, when it’s really a rejection of all politics
- People are programmed to conflate “anarchy” with “chaos”
- “Capitalism” is a word coined by Marx and carries all sorts of baggage.
- “Anarchy” (the absence of a monopoly on force) is the ideology; “Capitalism” (free markets) is just a (theorized) result of that ideology - no society will be forced not to be communistic or whatever
I just say, “I’m against enforced monopolies.” If someone made me use a single word, I would say “I’m an anti-monopolist” or I believe in “anti-monopolism.”
Anarcho-capitalism is a political society where the production of law and protection is not monopolized and is provided under a contractual basis by capitalistically organized enterprise.
Jon,
I read your post and I have 3 thoughts. However, I cannot go back to the page as it is unavailable. Maybe start a new thread here?
Can you describe Anarcho-Capitalism
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate.
What’s inevitable is that government always grows bigger at the expense of the people’s freedom.
But if people are actually against any kind of enforced monopoly there’s no reason for them to suddenly turn around and want one (the majority, in any case). It didn’t happen in the Old West, for example.
Ancap is against enforced monopolies because private and competing entities always outperform those publicly subsidized through violence. Libertarians argue against cohersion and support voluntary exchanges.
But you have to remember that no one offers you any guarantees in terms of prosperity or security. But the problem is, government doesn’t either. As, I’m sure, you’re aware of. So what you should ask yourself, under what system your chances are better? Who is more likely to restrict your right to defend yourself, the government or the private defense agencies? Who’s got more incentives to provide better services? Think about such things as gun control, unlawful imprisonment and murder, corruption, all kinds of taxation (i.e. theft from the population), aggressive wars. What are the roots of those?
You’re also confusing political power based on enforced monopoly with a leadership in a group with a voluntary participation, such as businesses. Can Balmer force his employees to have only Windows installed on their home computers? No. Can the government? Sure. And it doesn’t have to be a direct order, like in totalitarian states. They can raise taxes and force the companies leave the market, thus reducing your choices, or impose some regulations that force the company change the product according to the so called anti-trust laws. You can leave the company, but you can’t ignore the state without possible repurcussions.
Anarcho-capitalism means property rights (negative rights) without invoking privilege (positive rights, the state). So privilege is too seen as an assault on property rights.